The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Ozone 5 & Ozone 5 Advanced is Officially Released
Old 27th February 2012
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Lights's Avatar
Just wanted to share an Ozone 5 story...

I'm no mastering engineer, but like more and more musicians these days, I'm producing and distributing my own work. That's why I was a little surprised when an instrumentalist I'd used on some past work asked me if I wouldn't mind "mastering" a CD he was producing. His style couldn't be more different from mine--Americana oldtime stringband music recorded in a single day around a stereo pair of mics in an X-pattern. But his budget was $0 and I was more than happy to spend a few hours helping out a friend.

His goal was to produce a master CD-R to be mass-produced for distribution at his band's shows. He had a specific sound he wanted to attain and knew exactly what he wanted--it was very old-timey to my ears, so different from the digitally (over-) produced music I write.

So I pulled up CD Architect, a tool I'd honestly never really used (came with Sound Forge Pro) and we arranged the tracks. But despite the fact that they were all recorded in the same session, because of slight changes in the position of the instruments and singers each track sounded different. The volume levels weren't matched, and worse, the tonal qualities weren't consistent.

Within the first 10-20 minutes we had a good basic preset built in Ozone using a combination of 3-band dynamics and IRC3 that brought all of the songs much closer in line with each other. After that we honed in on the remaining tonal balance issues and it was a breeze to pick the best sounding song and then use matching EQ to even out the tracks on the CD. All told, it took under two hours for about 35 minutes of content. He walked away with a test CD that he'll live with for a few days before the final pass.

It was enjoyable to work on music that was so incredibly different in every way from mine to give me an appreciation and level of objectivity I don't have with my own music... and to work on a whole CD project at once, rather than releasing one song at a time which is typically how I work.
Old 16th January 2013
  #122
Also in support of Ozone 5, I just upgraded from version 4 for $99, and am impressed with the improvement in sound quality. I wasn't using Ozone 4 for the (pseudo) mastering I do because of better alternatives (bx, Sonnox, Waves, DPM), but now it's a really viable option. It even beats all the others for some things.
Old 16th January 2013
  #123
Lives for gear
 
marchhare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhitney View Post
Also in support of Ozone 5, I just upgraded from version 4 for $99, and am impressed with the improvement in sound quality. I wasn't using Ozone 4 for the (pseudo) mastering I do because of better alternatives (bx, Sonnox, Waves, DPM), but now it's a really viable option. It even beats all the others for some things.
Still love it.
Old 17th January 2013
  #124
Lives for gear
 
Chris Bauer's Avatar
I think the EQ has come along quite a bit since Version 4. Sounds smoother to my ears.
Old 17th January 2013
  #125
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
16 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Bauer View Post
I think the EQ has come along quite a bit since Version 4. Sounds smoother to my ears.
My plug-in EQ before the analogue chain used to be Algorithmix Blue, and although I still use it occasionally the O5 Advanced standalone EQ gets more use these days. As you say, the 5 EQ is an improvement over the 4, and surprisingly versatile: good as a notcher, and also works well when I run out of analogue parametric bands.
Old 17th January 2013
  #126
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowland View Post
My plug-in EQ before the analogue chain used to be Algorithmix Blue, and although I still use it occasionally the O5 Advanced standalone EQ gets more use these days. As you say, the 5 EQ is an improvement over the 4, and surprisingly versatile: good as a notcher, and also works well when I run out of analogue parametric bands.
An intriguing comment. May I ask what it is that pushes it ahead of the BLUE? Ease of use? Quality of sound in 'x' mode etc.?
Old 17th January 2013
  #127
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
16 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by huejahfink View Post
May I ask what it is that pushes it ahead of the BLUE? Ease of use? Quality of sound in 'x' mode etc.?
I still like the Blue, but it tends to get used more for minor final tweaks in the master playlist where what I think of as its quite gentle character is often just the ticket.

The 5 EQ comes into its own as the first processor in the chain where I typically need something a bit more assertive but not heavy-handed: for me it's very 'musical' while still being able to make sizeable shifts when required in either the analogue or digital modes (most times it's analogue); the closest I've so far seen to a general-purpose plug-in EQ for the kinds of things I want to do.
Old 17th January 2013
  #128
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Thanks for taking the time to reply Nigel.
Old 17th January 2013
  #129
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
I agree the Ozone 5 eq is a killer (I only use analog mode). Between that and the free sonic eq, I feel covered for digital eq.
Old 28th January 2013
  #130
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I just wanted to say thanks again to Lowland...

His comment about using Ozone 5 EQ over the Algorithmix Blue for some things made me want to approach the EQ again as I have the whole O5 advanced suite sitting here, largely untouched bar the limiter.

Have been using it in analogue mode for a few days for doing subtle shaping in the low end, and I think it's very smooth, natural and unobtrusive sounding down there.
An improvement on the EQ from MD3 I was using a lot for that sort of task, certainly on the mixes I've been working on. Just sounds less processed on the Ozone EQ.
Old 29th January 2013
  #131
Lives for gear
 
nott's Avatar
 

hi guys! i need a little help on the ozone 5 eq settings!!
which internal ozone 5 buffersize and latency sounds best? the difference in sound is "drastically" switching - especially in the sublowend.
last week i mastered a dance track with a very clean and boomy dance style kick. by setting an ozone hipass filter i heard an unnatural and "stretched" low end.
can someone try a few settings with the lowcut in ozone??
thanks!
Old 29th January 2013
  #132
Lives for gear
 
Alexey Lukin's Avatar
 

Verified Member
There should be no dependence of sound on the buffer size at all. Try a null test.
Old 29th January 2013
  #133
Lives for gear
 
lowland's Avatar
 

Verified Member
16 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by huejahfink View Post
I just wanted to say thanks again to Lowland...

His comment about using Ozone 5 EQ over the Algorithmix Blue for some things made me want to approach the EQ again as I have the whole O5 advanced suite sitting here, largely untouched bar the limiter.

Have been using it in analogue mode for a few days for doing subtle shaping in the low end, and I think it's very smooth, natural and unobtrusive sounding down there.
An improvement on the EQ from MD3 I was using a lot for that sort of task, certainly on the mixes I've been working on. Just sounds less processed on the Ozone EQ.
You're more than welcome.

Ozone's (for me) slightly flashy graphical appearance is the front for some serious tools, and if one listens with an open mind that's clear enough. Although I sometimes wish there was a plain 'pro look' skin, I expect I'll eventually get over it...
Old 29th January 2013
  #134
Lives for gear
 
nott's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin View Post
There should be no dependence of sound on the buffer size at all. Try a null test.
the next days i'll post an excample.
Old 30th January 2013
  #135
Lives for gear
 
nott's Avatar
 

so, here are 3 audio samples of a kick with the ozone eq.
the eq is working in digital mode.
there is no modulation or analogue-style plugin included.

sample 1: freq. res.: 12hz / buffer size 1024
sample 2: freq. res.: 12hz / buffer size 8192
sample 3: freq. res.: 3hz / buffer size 1024

nulltest: sample 1vs2 > -66,6 dbfs
nulltest: sample 1vs3 > -26,9 dbfs

i think, there should no difference between sample 1 and sample 2??
and why is the bass response with the 3hz so smeary??
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sample 1 vs Sample 2.jpg (63.6 KB, 339 views) File Type: jpg Sample 1 vs Sample 3.jpg (65.5 KB, 320 views) File Type: png Ozone EQ Sample 1.png (668.7 KB, 304 views) File Type: png Ozone EQ Sample 2.png (674.2 KB, 313 views) File Type: png Ozone EQ Sample 3.png (672.3 KB, 360 views)
Attached Files

Sample 1.wav (1.83 MB, 306 views)

Sample 2.wav (1.83 MB, 295 views)

Sample 3.wav (1.83 MB, 423 views)

Old 31st January 2013
  #136
Lives for gear
 
Alexey Lukin's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by nott View Post
i think, there should no difference between sample 1 and sample 2??
That's right. If snapshots are the same, the result should be the same too. However if you have captured snapshots at different buffer sizes, the snapshots may be slightly different. Anyway, [email protected] would love to get more details on your case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nott View Post
and why is the bass response with the 3hz so smeary??
This may be because of a different frequency response. Better frequency resolution means worse time resolution...
Old 31st January 2013
  #137
Lives for gear
 
nott's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin View Post
That's right. If snapshots are the same, the result should be the same too. However if you have captured snapshots at different buffer sizes, the snapshots may be slightly different. Anyway, [email protected] would love to get more details on your case.



This may be because of a different frequency response. Better frequency resolution means worse time resolution...
thanks alexey!
it's a little bit strange to get the right settings
Old 22nd April 2016
  #138
Gear Addict
 
cemski's Avatar
Did anybody get a working linking function (for example between Mid & Side EQ bands)? I don't get it :(
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 62 views: 22567
Avatar for MarkyGoldstein
MarkyGoldstein 30th December 2014
replies: 434 views: 117566
Avatar for Slug1
Slug1 25th January 2015
replies: 512 views: 142819
Avatar for beechstudio
beechstudio 10th April 2012
replies: 61 views: 9372
Avatar for thermos
thermos 4th March 2020
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump